Title
De Winkleman vs. Veluz
Case
G.R. No. L-17314
Decision Date
Jul 3, 1922
Victoria, aware of Veluz's lease, purchased land; Supreme Court ruled she couldn't terminate lease, binding her to its terms.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132988)

Parties Involved

  • Plaintiffs/Appellants: Victoria T. de Winkleman and C. L. Winkleman
  • Defendant/Appellant: Filemon Veluz
  • Owner of the Leased Property: Segunda Abuel

Case Background

Upon the purchase of the property, de Winkleman believed she could terminate Veluz's lease and sought legal remedy to compel Veluz to deliver possession of her property. Veluz, countering this claim, requested to stay on the property during the agricultural year, sought damages, and argued that the case fell under forcible entry and detainer jurisdiction, which would belong to a justice of the peace court instead of the Court of First Instance.

Trial Court's Decision

The trial court partly favored de Winkleman but awarded the property's fruits to Veluz and declared the lease terminated. This decision was contested by both parties, with de Winkleman disputing the award to Veluz, and Veluz challenging the court's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction Analysis

The Supreme Court found Veluz’s contention regarding the lower court's lack of jurisdiction invalid. The case's essence was not merely about ejectment, but rather whether de Winkleman had the right to terminate the lease after her purchase. Therefore, the Court of First Instance had the proper authority to adjudicate the matter.

Application of Civil Code

The pivotal question was whether de Winkleman could invoke Article 1571 of the Civil Code to terminate Veluz’s lease. Article 1571 states that a purchaser is entitled to terminate any existing lease unless otherwise stipulated. The court examined two critical exceptions to this article: any contrary stipulation between seller and buyer and the status of the purchaser as a third party with respect to the Mortgage Law.

Knowledge of the Lease

The court underscored that de Winkleman was aware of the lease's terms before purchasing the property. Though the stipulation to respect the lease wasn't included explicitly in the deed, the law does not require such terms to be recorded, provided the buyer has actual knowledge. De Winkleman's awareness was adequate for the lease to be impliedly part of the sale agreement.

Registration of Lease

The court further elaborated that since Veluz was the lessee under a contract exceeding six years, the lease constituted a real right, typically subject to registration under the Mortgage Law. Although the lease was not registered due to the lack of prior registration of the property, de Winkleman's knowledge of the lease conditions prior to pu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.